... that the basic principle of the design was that a copy of you was actually being created at the other end and not the original you?

Think of the Star Trek transporters and McCoy's concerns about them. Think of the basic principle of what they really do... they break down an item into energy, the energy is put it machine form pattern, the pattern is transmitted to a receiving end, and then at the receiving end that pattern is used to "recreate" the item.

What got me thinking about this was a movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482571/) I caught last night that starts off as a drama and about 2/3rds of the way into the story line it turns into sci-fi. I won't give the name of the movie since if you haven't seen it yet then I don't wont to give away any details but if you're curious click the link for the IMDB listing.

So, with the basic premise in mind, would you be willing to walk into a transporter knowing that you will not walk out of the other side but rather a copy of yourself?

Most Certainly

Idon't believe the scanning process of Star Trek's transporters is a viable option. How could you poissibly keep your brain connections and memories that make your character up?

I prefer a transporting of a bubble of space, a sphere and all it's physical contents. The sphere would swap contents with the other end, and by that process a device for measuring the air content/temperature in that other space would be necessary for security.
Unless two machines are mated, requiring the second half of the pair of machines to be physically transported to the target location first.

I've thought about this before myself, and I can honestly say that I would use it in a second. And while we're at it, why couldn't the copy be improved?

"Transport into a better you...today!"

And while we're at it, why couldn't the copy be improved?

"Transport into a better you...today!"


How to deal with all the disabled people in our community you mean? But messing with nature is dangerous. Change something and a rolling effect could happen. Again, the most crucial things are your brain connections, memories, etc. You could change something that effects that area and then come out the other side physical fixed, but mentally no longer yourself.

I've thought about this before myself, and I can honestly say that I would use it in a second. And while we're at it, why couldn't the copy be improved?

"Transport into a better you...today!"But that's just it... it wouldn't be you but rather a copy of you. The "you" right now would end up going away.

I'm totally ok with both of those.

Said no...
firstly, I like who I am and that other person wouldn't be mean.
secondly, on concept - I don't see how the science works, where is the second machine that buts me back together? How do you deal with the loss of matter that is taken from the beamin location that is used to make the other me?

Makes nice science fiction, but little if any science fact.

Knowing the risks with something like a "transporter", I'd still use it....after all, you only get one shot at life; you might as well go for it when you have the opportunity. :cool:

You guys can test it for me for a while and let me know how it works. heh heh heh

I am all for fixing disabilities though. I loved home Star Trek could cure all diseases except Captain Picard's baldness.

yes i would. just dont tell my wife. she would send my atoms into deep space.

Just Found this article - It is COOLSCIFI!!

Beam Me Up, Scotty: Transporters Might Really Work: Book Review (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=acXfuVzM1x0c&refer=home)

March 25 (Bloomberg) -- The most precious substance on Earth isn't gold or platinum. It's antimatter, valued by physicist Michio Kaku (http://www.mkaku.org/) at $62.5 trillion a gram.
Antimatter, which is like ordinary matter except with the charges of its subatomic particles reversed, powered spaceships in ``Star Trek (http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/index.html)'' and in real life is one possible key to allowing travel between planets or galaxies, Kaku writes in ``Physics of the Impossible (http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385520690).''
A professor at the City University of New York, Kaku appears to have read every major tract by Albert Einstein (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Albert+Einstein&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), Werner Heisenberg (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1932/heisenberg-bio.html) and Kurt Godel (http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/godel.html), plus a mountain of comic books and science-fiction novels. His own book assesses whether phasers, teleportation and other technologies used by Flash Gordon and Captain Kirk could really be developed.
Kaku is no stranger to his subject. In high school, he photographed antimatter tracks. He went on to become a pioneer of string field theory, which aspires to improve on Einstein in explaining the universe. He also wrote earlier science books aimed at the broader public, including ``Hyperspace.''
Kaku knows, and conveys, that both physics and science fiction are thrilling. In the beginning, the book is kind of a ``Whole Earth Catalog,'' or perhaps ``Whole Universe Catalog,'' of technologies. For each, Kaku describes how they appear in fiction, summarizes the relevant real-world science, and makes a prediction, albeit a loose one.
Cloaking Devices
``A form of invisibility may become commonplace'' within a century, if not a few decades, according to the author, who cites advances in nanotechnology and holograms. So-called metamaterials that make part of the light spectrum invisible already exist, possibly pointing the way to cloaking devices. But using the power of the unproven ``fourth dimension,'' the method favored by H.G. Wells's ``Invisible Man,'' isn't likely to pan out, according to Kaku.
The discussion of gadgets sometimes drags, and in later chapters the author wisely turns his attention to what's really fascinating in this enterprise: people and ideas. This is a book of enormous sweep, crammed with science and its history. His portraits of such figures as Erwin Schrodinger (of the fabled cat paradox in quantum mechanics) and Paul Dirac, the ``founder of antimatter,'' are immensely readable.
Seeing the Future
Some phenomena, such as precognition, or seeing the future, Kaku rules out as impossible under the known laws of physics. But he regards many other things that appear impossible today as likely to come about in thousands or millions of years.
The terms and concepts, arriving faster in later chapters, are often challenging. If you stop to ponder each idea too long, the book may have the effect of one of the so-called black holes in space discussed along the way: You may get in, but never get out. Otherwise, it's a rewarding trip.
``Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration Into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation and Time Travel'' is published by Doubleday (329 pages, $26.95).
(Jeffrey Tannenbaum (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Jeffrey+Tannenbaum&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) is an editor for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Yes, because i'm lazy.

Dan Simmons has a similar concept in Ilium/Olympos with "faxing"...

Spoiler!

I would definitely have some serious issues with that kind of "teleportation".

Having just dealt with US Airways for a flight to and from Ohio for a wedding I can honestly say I'd use the transporter even if it was a copy of me that came out the other side AND the copy got kicked in the groin for good measure.

Having just dealt with US Airways for a flight to and from Ohio for a wedding I can honestly say I'd use the transporter even if it was a copy of me that came out the other side AND the copy got kicked in the groin for good measure.Ouch! Besides 'nickle & diming' you for everything, how else did they mess up your trip?

Having just dealt with US Airways for a flight to and from Ohio for a wedding I can honestly say I'd use the transporter even if it was a copy of me that came out the other side AND the copy got kicked in the groin for good measure.
http://www.cugy.net/forums/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Which airline was it that said they were going to start charging for pillows and blankets???

(Off-topic but still incredible.)

If a copy would be created of me, would then there be two seperate me's roaming on this planet? I don't know if I understood correctly or not.

Anyway, if there was only one me after the transporting and the ways of doing the transport wouldn't in any way damage or alter me but the method was exlusively efficient, I would do it. Not several times, though, because what the scientists say may not always be the truth. But the experience would be way too awesome to miss.

And in case there would be two seperate me made pending the transport, I would refuse. Even one me is enough for the world to stand, not to mention numerous.

If a copy would be created of me, would then there be two seperate me's roaming on this planet? I don't know if I understood correctly or not.

Anyway, if there was only one me after the transporting and the ways of doing the transport wouldn't in any way damage or alter me but the method was exlusively efficient, I would do it. Not several times, though, because what the scientists say may not always be the truth. But the experience would be way too awesome to miss.

And in case there would be two seperate me made pending the transport, I would refuse. Even one me is enough for the world to stand, not to mention numerous.
There would only be one of you. Essentially in the scenario I described the transporter mechanism makes a copy of you and then destroys the original.

With an exact copy, life goes on. Sure ... why not?
Heck of a way to do laundry, or do dirty clothes get duplicated smelly?
Or is new, all new? No bad breath, brushed teeth, showered body, shaved face, full stomach, clipped nails, combed hair, fresh clothes ...

Oh indeed I would !

Said no...
firstly, I like who I am and that other person wouldn't be mean.
secondly, on concept - I don't see how the science works, where is the second machine that buts me back together? How do you deal with the loss of matter that is taken from the beamin location that is used to make the other me?

Makes nice science fiction, but little if any science fact.

Not being mean could be an improvement for sure! Whoops typo :p

Well the energy from the matter id imagine could power the machine to send the data. But what happens if they just make a pretend machine and start converting humans to energy to power peoples light bulbs. Kind of like the matrix but not having to keep the people alive (which I think would use much more energy than they would produce) and not having to power a huge electronic world for the humans to live in. I thought this was a huge flaw in the matrix story, don't get me wrong it is a great film though!

Edit: No I wouldn't use this machine unless it operated on different principals like the idea of shifting an area of space for another. What's the point in transporting yourself if it is not really you that comes out the other end!

It would depend on damage, if any.
Start over? How many didn't want to at least try this?
Same brain, new body ... hallelujah!
Same body, new brain (empty) ... not so much.
Same/same? Well, that's the answer to the energy situation ... isn't it?

all in all, Yes, I would.

I'm with Tim on this one - the compexities involved in moving billions of atoms and re-arranging them in the right order while also reconnecting the billions of connections in the brain.... This is a major reason I have not used this form of transport in either of my books!

Uh, remember the transporter malfunction in the first Star Trek film?

"What we got back didn't live long ... thank goodness."

Uh, remember the transporter malfunction in the first Star Trek film?

"What we got back didn't live long ... thank goodness."I still don't think I could do it. :o

I certainly wouldn't, because "I" would be killed. It would only be a copy of me which would be recreated.

Let me give you this example: suppose it were possible to create a perfect copy of yourself without destroying you, so you would both be alive together (as in Christopher Priest's book and film, The Prestige). Would you then be happy to be killed, knowing that your copy would continue to live? Because that, in effect, is what the Star-Trek type transporter does, only in a slightly different order.

But that's just it... it wouldn't be you but rather a copy of you. The "you" right now would end up going away.

I certainly wouldn't, because "I" would be killed. It would only be a copy of me which would be recreated.That's what I've been saying! :D If there was a transporter that could take me to a more Earthly destination instantly, like to Japan from Philly, would I be interested? Sure, but not if I knew that it wouldn't be "me" walking out of the other end but rather a copy of me. That person would look like me, have the same memories as me, perhaps even the same 'essence' of what makes me to be me, but the first & original copy, me, would go away. I would not be walking around the streets of Tokyo with my own eyes but rather somebody who looks like me; "I" would be gone, never to be seen again.


... (as in Christopher Priest's book and film, The Prestige) ...That indeed is what I was watching when I pondered this question.

I just couldn't do it.

It brings a smile to my face to see you baby step your way through these important questions. There are ways around this problem, several in fact, but "NO" I would not get into or use a transporter of that type...duh! Thats like being one of those ignorant suicide bombers...if you are dead anyway what difference does it make to you that you blew up some people. That just makes no sense at all.
A real transporter though will reassemble you and your consiousness exactly.